There is rarely time to read the same book twice. If we take good notes, we (or anyone else) should be able to review the main point of each chapter of this book and use these ideas to support our own thinking about educational reform, connect to other sources, and draw our own conclusions.
To that end, prepare a synopsis on one of the book's chapters. Each synopsis page should include: The title of the chapter, a concise paragraph summary of the chapter, bullet points that summarize the main points, and a paragraph that describes your reactions. For shared chapters, you should divide the work evenly and fairly. Synopsis links:
Title Chapter 1: What I Learned about School Reform
pp. 1-14
Summary
Diane Ravitch is an educational historian who has been on the forefront of federal educational reform efforts for the past three decades. In this chapter, she sets the stage for changing her mind about many of these efforts and explaining her criticisms of several of the current efforts to improve schools. The chapter is a walk through the main writings of her career. The purpose of this "tour" is to establish her credentials for what she is about to say later in the book as well as to provide historical context for many of today's reform efforts.
Notes
The task of repainting her home office gave the author a chance to ruminate over how her views on educational reform had changed over her career so far.
Intellectual crisis: Views on educational reform, once centered on potential of acceptability, testing, choice and markets, was now accompanied by doubt.
Patterns from previous writing:
Skepticism about pedagogical fads, enthusiasm, and movements
Have permeated history of education in the US
Are with us now, e.g. market reforms, etc.
Common view of school reformers: They have solution to (simple) problem of improving schools.
Ravitch: Consistently warned against shortcuts, utopias, and silver bullets.
Deep belief in the value of a rich, coherent school curriculum, especially in history and literature.
Career Retrospective
1968 – Urban Review – “Programs, Placebos, and Panaceas.”
Conflict between utopian promise and gritty reality.
1960 – Foundations: Playing God in the Ghetto
Mega-rich foundations taking charge of reforming public schools w/o accountability.
1974 – The Great School Wars: New Your City 1805-1973.
Pull toward and then away from school centralization in NY
1978 – The Revisionists Revised: A Critique of the Radical Attack on Schools
Schools are the “primary mechanism through which a democratic society gives its citizens the opportunity the attain literacy and social mobility.” (p. 6)
1985 – The Troubled Crusade – American Education 1945-1980
Period of significant cultural change
1987 – What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?
Importance of curriculum
First test of knowledge of literature and history.
How can you reject a canon you do not know?
1985 – Assisted in drafting History Framework for State of California
1991 – Invited to join Bush administration in Dept of Education
Used modest federal funding to encourage development of “voluntary” curricular standards in history, the arts, geography, civics, science, economics, foreign languages, and English.
Lack of congressional approval limited effectiveness and longevity of project.
While the Republican administration could tolerate standards, its real focus was on increasing the amount of school choice parents had access to. Ravitch saw increasing the amount of choice as strengthening the need for curricular standards.
After her stint at DOE, Ravitch because a proponent of of managerial and structural changes of schools, e.g. choice, charters, merit pay, and accountability.
Immersed in a world of “true believers,” author began to think that the business-minded reformers were “on to something important.” (8)
These reforms were also championed by both Bush and Clinton (“the New Democrats”).
“The new thinking – now ensconced in both parties – saw the public school system as obsolete, because it is controlled by the government and burdened by bureaucracy. Government-run schools, said a new generation of refomers, are ineffective because they are a monopoly; as such, they have no incentive to do better, and they serve the interests of adults who work in the system, not children.” p. 9
The optimism for applying market forces to schools led to a bipartisan enthusiasm for charter schools where school leaders could hire the best teachers, institute programs w/o a lot of oversight (meddling) and be judged solely on their results.
At the heart of the charter schools movement was the implicit notion that schools of the future would function without teacher unions.
Ravitch began to understand how policymakers must think.
Must be able to “see like a state.” (10)
Make decisions that affect people w/o constituents getting to vote on each piece.
It is the job of representative government to make decisions on behalf of constituents.
Successful policy changes come from:
seeking a mix of new and old ideas.
proponents who can advance their ideas through a gauntlet of checks and balances.
plans need to be explained and publicly reviewed.
champions who can persuade others.
Market reforms for education have natural appeal
“bringing improvements through an unknown force.”
lets leaders “off the hook” by allowing them to concentrate on incentives and sanctions and not worry about children, or specific interventions that address nasty problems.
Corporate reformers betray a weak understanding of education when they draw comparisons between education and business.
1999 – Author because founding member of Koret Task Force
Stanford group supporting educational reforms based on the principles of standards, accountability, and choice.
Reactions - 2011
Chapter one describes the thesis of the author, including her personal background and experiences as an educator. This chapter serves as an introduction for the reader, reflecting her views on the reform standards of schools in America. She establishes the foundation for the remainder of the book and reveals her honest perspective on the successes or failures of our school systems. Ravitch's experiences make her well-qualified to write about this controversial subject matter. Her admitting of her changed viewpoints also displays her truthful nature, providing credibility as an author. Her narrative is not so much factual as it is personal and passionate. Ravitch entices her audience to want to read the rest of her book with her inspiring writing style and the intriguing content provided in her initial chapter.
Chapter 2: Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement
pg. 15 - 30
Summary
This chapter focuses mostly on school reforms and how everyone realized that it was important for students to have a well rounded education. Government and schools understood that students needed to be proficient in subject like history, english, and the arts. Standardized tests don't often test students on history and the arts, which are just as important.
Notes
leading reform ideas were accountability and choice
No Child Left Behind
"The rise or fall of test scores in reading and mathematics became the critical variable in judging students, teachers, principals, and schools."
NCLB didn't reference what students should learn
left to each state to determine
initially supportive of NCLB
law bypassed curriculum
claimed it was a natural outgrowth of the standards movement
demanded that schools generate higher test scores in basic skills
required no curriculum at all
also didn't raise standards
didn't include history, civics, literature, science, the arts, and geography
new reforms had everything to do with structural changes and accoutability, but nothing to do with the substance of learning
often generated higher test scores
had nothing to do with education
should be based on the curriclum
"Students need a coherent foundation of knowledge and skills that grows stronger each year."
well-educated person:
has a well furnished mind, shaped by reading and thinkig about history, science, literature, the arts, and politics
has learned how to explain ideas and listen respectfully to others
in 1980s and 1990s there were efforts to rivive liberal education
believed all children should have access to a broad education in the arts and sciences
1991 - 1992: grants awarded to schools to develop voluntary national standards
fell apart in 1994
Lynne V. Cheney
the not yet released history standards were poliyically biased
Bill Clinton became president
history standards ignored
Ravitch: history standars should be revised not abandoned
"Will we learn from our mistakes and keep trying? Or will we give up?" (pg. 18)
Reactions - 2011
We agree that the improvements and modifications to the curriculum that Ravitch discusses are definitely needed. The students need to be more well rounded so the teachers and classrooms need to modify their plans so that more time is dedicated to each of the subjects. Ravitch's point about moving away from testing resonates with us because we feel as though we have been taught how to take a test, not taught the material that we would need to know. How effective are these tests if you can score above average on a Science section without ever taking a Biology course? The teachers are being told to teach to the test, not to the material in the course. Teachers cram material that will be tested on the state tests into their lessons even though they are not even related to the current course material. We feel as if the subjects that are tested on, like English and Math, are given more attention than the other subjects such as Science and History. Ignoring or not focusing as much on these other subjects is leading to ignorance in students. For example, if you know that a law has failed in the past, you will know not to enforce it again. Having knowledge of these subjects makes more well rounded students who will better off in the future. Based on the levels of students and the levels of those classes, students are being told different things. For example, in an Honors or AP, students feel as if they are encouraged to think more freely and their opinions are appreciated. However, in a College Prep or lower level, they are being taught that their opinions are wrong and are not being encouraged to think freely. - Reaction- How does teaching tests make the students proficient in the long-run? The goal is to educate students’ on a curriculum and not just on tests. What went wrong with the NCLB act was teachers stopped using curriculums so they could just focus on testing scores. States had control of what would be taught which ended up narrowing what types of classes kids could take. Subjects like history, art and science are important in education and being cut out of curriculums is counterproductive because it prevents students from becoming well-rounded.
This chapter covers the turn-around District 2 of New York and how Anthony Alvarado began making extreme reforms (particularly to its Reading program) when he became superintendent of the district in 1987. Alvarado highly stressed (and mandated) using Balanced Literacy in District 2's schools as a method of teaching. It was a style of teaching in which the students would teach each other many things rather than the teacher giving a lecture for the entire class. Students would learn from experience and then exchange their experiences with other students and learning more through this exchange. By the mid/late 90s District 2 gained the status of having the 2nd highest test scores in New York as opposed to its earlier rank which was somewhere in the middle of New York's 32 school districts. Education scholars such as Lauren Resnick and Richard F. Elmore took notice of District 2's great improvement and asked Alvarado to join them in documenting the process of his reform. The three attributed District 2's success solely to pedagogy rather than economic status of the district itself (which they feared would happen in the eye of the public). Sure enough, critics and parents of District 2 alike began to claim Disrict 2's methods as unorthodox and "preventing children from to read". Although Resnick, Elmore, and Alvarado claimed that District 2 had been economically stagnant during its time of reform in their report, the District actually increased in economic status while these changes were happening. Along with this, the district's school's student population was mostly made up of White and Asian students. This shows how although Alvarado's pedagogy may have had an effect on the District, it appears that race and economic status also had a great deal to do with it.
Notes
Average family income of District 2 rose from $150,767 in 1990 to $169,533 in 2000.
In 1999, when the state introduced new tests, the following proportions of students in District 2's fourth grade met state standards in Reading: 82% whites, 61% Asians, 45.7% African-Americans, and 37.8% Hispanics.
From the late 1980s to the late 1990s, District 2's enrollment grew from 18,000 to 22,000 students; however, nearly 90% of the newly enrolled students were Asian or white.
Education scholar's attributed Alvarado's improvements of District 2 schooling to his focusing "professional development and accountability almost entirely on reading and literacy improvements."
Reaction
My reaction to this is somewhat let down and disappointed. When first begin the chapter I was interested in all the numbers Ravitch was throwing out there regarding the District's improvements. I actually believed that Alvarado was making a really big difference and that other school districts were right in modeling their school system after District 2's. However, as the chapter went on, I began to realize that, although claimed by Ravitch as having many of both poor and wealthy neighborhoods, that the District's lesser amount of diversity than the New York average and economic increase in those years of reform is most likely what led it to be successful. I feel that Alvarado's reforms certainly helped with this increase in the school's success, but overall I feel as though it was just another school system benefiting from its wealthy location.
SECOND REACTION: We were not happy with this chapter. The guy discussed in chapter three, Alvarado and his tactics, were very irritating. He went in a changed all the schools around in District 2 in New York and then proceeded to do the same thing in California. He tried to balance literacy and was attempting to close the achievement gap but what really happened was that he messed with the diversity of the schools. In my opinion, making the school less diverse will not help the school as a whole. Despite the fact that his ideas were well thought out, they weren't executed properly and effectively.This chapter was very difficult for me to get through and found it to be one of the more interesting chapters in this book so far.
San Diego school officials overhauled the district by hiring a non educator, Alan Bersin, as the superintendent in 1998. Surprisingly, San Diego was already a high achieving district, which is why it was a very unpredicted move to launch a massive reform campaign. This campaign, however, was not entirely without reason. The teacher's union had desperately wanted wage increases (the highest wage at the time was only $55,000) so it was determined that a strong new leader was needed. Bersin was the man for the job. As a former law student at Harvard, Oxford, and Yale he possessed strong business connections and was not affiliated with the teachers' union. To summarize, Bersin made the following changes to the school system:
He joined with former federal prosecutor Anthony Alvarado
Incorporated New York's "Balanced Literacy" method
Replaced 5 area superintendents with 7 "instructional leaders"
Downsized central office personnel by 104 people
Formulated a plan called "The Blueprint" (p. 51) that passed in 2000
Part II Summary:
In 2002, the American Institutes for Research evaluated the Blueprint. Even though AIR was happy with the Blueprint, they noticed the teachers were upset because it was started up too quickly. The academic results for the implementation of the Blueprint showed that there were mixed gains that are made less viable based on resistance from teachers and impending budget cuts. They concluded that without teacher support, the Blueprint would not be as effective.
Elementary school findings varied from high school findings.
Elementary teachers thought their students learned more, but high school teachers did not.
Teacher unions were blamed for the teachers' discontent, instead of the issues within Blueprint policy.
San Diego students did not gain as much as other students from other districts did from the Blueprint
Only in middle schools did San Diego students show similar rates of progress
Important Factor: According to Sheila Byrd, curriculum expert, San Diego focused more on the aspects of how teachers should be teaching instead of what students should be learning.
This caused frustration for a lot of the teachers because they had very little input about the way Blueprint was enforced
One principal even described the Blueprint as "a regime of thought control" (pg. 62)
One principal said the minute-to-minute schedule was difficult for children to adjust to because they would be so engaged in their work it would be hard for them to stop.
Teachers became parrots- they were telling the leaders of the Blueprint what they wanted to hear, not what the teachers wanted to say.
Important Conclusion Regarding the Blueprint: The teachers union was surveyed about the reforms
78% said the Blueprint and other reform efforts were not an improvement to the quality of education in San Diego
63% reported poor teacher morale
Descriptions of the Superintendent and his administration had words such as "arrogant, dictatorial and disrespectful."
Stress-related illnesses rose for teachers
Majority of the teachers were angry and disaffected because of the Blueprint- the way Bersin went about changing the system and implementing Blueprint made it so ineffective to the San Diego school district. Had it been handled differently the results may have been more positive.
Broad Prize as most improved urban school district in the nation
Michael Bloomberg became mayor
did not want an independent agency (Board of Education)
overhauled entire district
recruited leaders from corporate America to apply business principles to public education
Children First
install uniform reading and math program in all schools
eliminate districts and replace with large regions
private funding for training and mentoring principals
promised greater parental involvement, but it was actually reduced
created a leadership academy to train prinipals
parent activists contributed to a NYC Public School Parents' blog
Joel Klein (former lawyer Bloomberg hired into the system) declared centralization a success and proceeded to rid the city of direct supervision of the schools
due to this business approach, when decisions were made at headquarters they often resulted badly - with the reorganization of bus routes, children of the same household were sent to different stops
Soon enough, the Department of Education decided to take autonomy and choice as its main initiatives.
Made a "Panel for Educational Policy" that, to him, was of no importance. Members were appointed by him
Joel Klein was appointed as chancellor without any education experience
wanted to run the school system as a business
His plan was based on testing
only tested reading and mathematics so there was little attention to all the other subjects
bus routes were rearranged and many kids were left stranded
He wanted to to end "social promotion"
this caused the standards to drop
in the end, there was no change
embraced charter schools
some complained that charter schools ignored disadvantaged populations
disadvantaged children have a harder time with the application process and therefore rarely got in
small-school movement led by Deborah Meier
200 new small schools were opened
Small schools had their advantages and disadvantages
high schools were specific to profession
it was very hard for students to choose a school
not many 9th grade students know what they want to do
some students didnt get into the highschool they wanted
commutes were up to 90 minutes
Schools were going to be graded A-F on improvement
if a successful school dropped a bit in scores, they received an F
if an unsuccessful school improved a bit, they received an A
therefore, it was confusing to chose the right school
there was no "school-change" strategy, only "school-shutdown" strategy
In the end, the test scores lose their meaning because teachers only teach to pass the tests
School becomes a game
This chapter exemplifies several of the "mistakes" Mayor Bloomberg made during his term. It shows the problems that stemmed from having a uniform, centralized system with a single math and reading program for every school. As Ravitch says, it is easy to believe that these are all good ideas that will result in success within the school system. However, rather than reaching goals, many of the strategies that were implemented created chaos and lack of achievement. Michael Bloomberg took all the power of the school system and changed the schools completely. He shut down many schools and created hundreds of new schools. The evaluation of schools was flawed along with the testing process, but proceeded with these new plans anyway. He did not really get to the heart of the problems with schools. Parents did not have much say at all if any which is a problem when it comes to their child's schooling. It shouldn't be as hard for students to attend school as Bloomberg made it.
School reform truly needs to be taken one step and a time and such drastic changes can not be made so rapidly within a matter of a few short years. Bloomberg's strategies encouraged the "Game of School" where teachers taught to the tests and students took minimal interest in the material. However, this experimental business model was good to learn from, as school officials now know what strategies to avoid and what to implement.
Diane Ravitch: The Death and Life of the Great American School SystemChapter 6- NCLB: Measure and PunishBy: Chloe BlauAdded to by: Alex Carlson and Lindsay Heckmann
Chapter Summary:
The focus of this chapter was No Child Left Behind. This was an act of congress that was initiated by former President George W. Bush in 2001, and was signed into law on January 8th, 2002. No Child Left Behind, or more frequently referred to as NCLB, is all about standard-based education and education reform. Bush promised that NCLB would bring about a new era of high standards, testing, and accountability. The chapter introduces the legislation, goes over the details of it, and then gets into how the legislation is not working properly. One of the issues with NCLB is that one of its goals is by the year 2014, every student must be proficient in reading and math. Now are now four years and a long ways away from obtaining that goal. The major issue that Ravitch had with NCLB was that it was indeed a nice thought, but it didn't explain how these standards would be met, and it didn't seem very realistic. Another issue was that the document used terms, such as "adequate yearly progress" and "proficiency", that it did not define, so it was somewhat unclear to the reader what the goal was. The chapter continues on discussing NCLB and the effects of this act. Ravitch ends the chapter with a pretty powerful quote: "Testing is not a substitute for curriculum and instruction. Good education cannot be achieved by a strategy of testing children, shaming educators, and closing schools" (111).
Major Points of the Chapter:
Accountability features of NCLB
NCLB was not working
Poor performing students were offered to transfer schools
Center on Education Policy (CEP) study- "restructuring" was ineffective
Goals of NCLB are out of reach
NCLB believed that low scores are caused by lazy teachers and principals
My Reaction to the Chapter:
My reaction to the chapter was not what I thought it was going to be initially. Before reading this, I had heard and somewhat of an understanding of what No Child left Behind was, but I didn't know the nitty gritty details that Ravitch goes on to discuss. Overall, I agree with what Ravitch has to say. I think that the goals that were set in NCLB, such as having EVERY SINGLE student in the United States proficient in Reading and Mathematics by the year 2014 is ludicrous. I think that NCLB needed to take smaller steps in their actions, and work as they go instead of trying to solve every problem they encountered at once. I also agree what the statement Diane Ravitch makes about testing not substituting for curriculum and instruction. I think that schools are now "teaching to the test" so much more, it is dumbing down the school curriculum and ultimately, making kids suffer through their education.
Before reading the chapter, I did not know much about No Child Left Behind. I had heard of it, of course, but did not really understand its purpose or goals. I agree with Ravitch's opinion that NCLB is outlandish. The idea of having every single student in America being proficient seems impossible. Though NCLB's goals are admirable and seek to improve student's educations, it does not provide adequate time and funds for the student's to improve. Now, NCLB is becoming more of a competition in that schools are competing to be viewed as "good schools" and are competing to receive the best test grades. With the addition of Race to the Top, schools are now forced to compete with each other because the "winner" will receive additional funding. Because schools are teaching to the tests, Ravitch's last quote is especially true when she states that "testing is not a substitue for curriculum and instruction". Schools should be teaching students the material, but instead they are teaching the students how to take a test because if they succeed, they "win" in terms of NCLB, but are they really successful in terms of preparing the students for college or post-schools careers?
Summary:
-Discusses the history of "school choice"
-Began with integration in the 1950's and '60's with the the U.S. Supreme Court Case "Brown vs. the Board of Education"
-1990's: 3 versions of school choice (non-religious): voucher schools, privately managed schools, and charter schools (in addition to the choice of attending public schools). Believed these schools would transform American Education and produce higher achievement.
-School choice allows for a variety of different options for parents and students in educational standards
-Funding differs for each school, not necessarily funded by the state. Private schools tend to generate more funding from internal sources and donations.
-With the presence of these private schools, public schools are given a negative stigma. This view of public schools inspires more parents to enter their children in private schools making entry more selective in the mass number of potential students. However, according to statistics, these schools have not generated much higher achievement than public schools, their reputations are based off a stereotype of being more academically successful because they are "private."
-KIPP ("Knowledge is Power Program")-Type of charter school designed to prepare minority students specifically for college. 9 1/2 hour days, Saturday classes, and only 3 weeks of summer school. Requires a great responsibility from the parents as this type of school is much more demanding. Select students by a lottery.
-Lotteries select the most motivated students (usually not minority, ESL, or special-needs students) to foster a positive learning environment. This inclusion of the most motivated students produces the high standardized tests scores that private schools are known for. The higher funding also allows more educational benefits and learning opportunities.
Summary:
In the 1990's, there was a growing amount of interest in accountability amongst governors, corporate executives, etc. They wanted to know if their tax dollars were getting a good return in education. George H.W. Bush established the National Education Goals Panel, which set and monitored lofty goals for the year 2000. The panel quietly vanished when none of the goals were met. George W. Bush would later create No Child Left Behind in 2001. It declared that all students should be proficient in reading and math by 2014, with consequences for schools which were not meeting standards. Parents and teachers who protested were simply labeled "anti-testing fanatics" and were ignored.
Main Points:
Accountability stemmed from a desire for measurable academic success.
Misuse of high stakes testing is a major problem with NCLB.
Information from tests can be useful if the tests are valid and reliable.
States lower standards in order to become more proficient.
Reactions: It is ridiculous, as Ravitch realizes, that Bush wanted everyone to be proficient by 2014. It encourages states to lower the standards so that they can meet proficiency. Though it seems that there are major gains in the state's proficiency, in reality, the tests are so much easier. This is what NCLB encourages in its need for total proficiency, which is an unreachable goal. It puts unnecessary pressure on both students and teachers and is not making any noticeable gains.
Ch 9 What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do? Main themes - Good teaching is most important to student learning -Unions -Business models -Power to one person to fire teachers Mrs. Ratliff – English teacher, nonconventional teaching, not in a union -Pushed her students to do better and taught her students to learn not only literature but character and responsibility -Ravitch says Ratliff wouldn’t be considered a “great” teacher by data driven facts and since she didn’t produce test scores -Unions prevent removal of “ineffective” teachers, but that might remove the actual good teachers -Run schools like a business? -Michelle Rhee Chancellor of schools in NY supported getting rid of bad teachers by getting rid of tenure -Rhee said performance doesn’t depend on poverty or family it only depends on teachers ability to teach -Ravitch feels unions are a right of the teachers and important -Tenure is an argument against unions since it keeps bad teachers, Ravitch argues against it -Original ideas for reforms did not include tying teachers pay to performance of students but over time this is what it evolved into due to NCLB and Value added assessment - Myths popped up that the achievement gaps could be closed in a few years with better teachers and policies which fueled people wanting to have complete power to fire bad teachers at will -Teach for America allows teachers to teach without degrees, results showed teachers with degrees produced higher achievement
The Death and Life of the Great American School System
by Diane Ravitch
Chapter 10- The Billionaire Boys' Club
Chapter Summary
Chapter 10 is titled "The Billionaire Boys' Club" because Ravitch talks about billionaires in the education system. Because of the failed attempts of the Ford Foundation, other foundations began to step up to help the education system in America. However, most the foundations were philanthropic and backed by families with billion dollar fortunes. The top three foundations were the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (founder of Microsoft), the Walton Family Foundation (founder of Walmart) and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation (founder and seller of a retirement business called SunAmerica). Because many of the less fortunate districts needed the funding and support of the big philanthropic foundations, they turned to the large corporations for help and couldn't turn down the generous offers being given to them. Although the money was good, the outcome wasn't what they expected. Many of the districts were scared to say anything when they realized their district was not improving with the input of these businesses. Many of the leaders of the schools avoided making their opinions and ideas aware to the foundations, in fear that they could jeopardize future contributions from the foundations.
Each of these foundations were major philanthropic foundations trying to fix the education systems in America. Although each foundation made large efforts to change the structure and methods surrounding the failing schools, not all of them were successful. Even though many of the effected districts were seeing improvements in attendance and student/teacher relationships, the academics in the school remained the same or decreased. For example: The Gates Foundation tried making big schools smaller in order to improve rigor, relevance and relationships however making the schools smaller only led to less resources for other programs such as AP classes and sports. This caused many of the advanced kids to leave the small schools and go to different districts, in turn causing the academic standing of the school to decrease or remain the same. Another example was the Broad foundation thinking that schools could be run like a business and the Walton foundation believing that there should be market competition among schools. Despite the efforts and funding that the big foundations provided, the Billionaires didn't end up really improving the academics of the schools. So although each foundation did wonders with the amount of money they donated, Ravitch still believes that unless they recognize the importance of "teacher effectiveness," or the negative effects of running education systems like a business, public education will be destroyed.
Robin Keller pgs. 195-208
Controversy of education in 1960's Ford Foundation
1967 project: Community Control- Schools in an impoverished urban neighborhood improve by being governed by parents and members of the local community.
Power eventually given back to the Mayor
Getting rid of white teachers/supervisors without due process
Demonstrations, protests and problems started in Ocean Hill Brownsville
Union went on strike three times and closed schools down for 2 months
1969 state decentralized schools and created elected school boards lasted until 2002
Ford foundation learned not to engineer social change- and set an example for others as to why it's bad
1993 Walter Annenberg commitment to school reform- 5 year plan to give 500 million dollars to improve education
local plans for improvement - arts, teacher development, parent engagement, social services, leadership, learning communities, etc
No real result, not related to the funding but no conflict either
need a specific plan to be effective
Philanthropists and billionaires began making efforts to education reform. Gates, Broad, Walton they wanted measurable results
set specific goals and achieved them
have power because they aren't accountable for changes, but the schools and teachers who receive the money are accountable for performance
Schools don't want to get rid of them because they are a large money source, cannot alienate
Long term goals of foundations must be scrutinized because of their great power and no one's ability to speak against them
People pour money into foundations so that they can make the changes that a more unorganized community cannot- many of these changes are focused on the way education systems are run
Walton- try to promote alternatives to public education favor market competition among schools promote charter schools and competition with government schools
Gates- wants to solve boosting high grad rates and college entry rates, especially in urban places- small schools were solution not true
small schools don't have the same options as large schools, decline in performance competition, cliques, divisive
changed thought from structure to teaching and learning
Rachel Jones
pgs 208 - 222
Studies have shown that the ideal size for a high school is 600 - 900 students, because small schools are not often able to offer a full curriculum and large schools have weak social relations. This is in line with the poor performance of Gates' schools
The Gates Foundation pointed to work where they claimed that small schools had helped in NYC. However, what they failed to consider is that the demographics were not the same (more females, fewer ESL students, & students with disabilities). Students who attended these schools already had higher attendance rates & test scores. In the future, these schools actually had higher teacher/prinicpal turnover and graduates received different diplomas.
Gates admitted that many of the small schools that his foundation invested in did not improve student achievement. He decided to refocus his work to the proliferation of charter schools, and to the issue of teacher effectiveness (how to improve & how to terminate teachers in ineffective schools).
Gates also decided to discontinue evaluations of small school grants and increased funding for advocacy work. The biggest grantees were charter schools, and the developers of new and redesigned high schools. No one criticized his donations because there had never been a foundation before that gave grants to every major organization for changing education and advocacy group.
Another philanthropist that has had a major impact on education is Eli Broad, who made his living as an accountant and entrepreneur. His foundation is called the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and invests in the arts, medical research, and education.
Broad sees education as an investment and should yield results. He believes in competition, choice, deregulation, accountability, merit pay, testing, and right management. Many people who made decisions with him were non-educators and held degrees in law, business, and management.
Broad invested in Oakland, CA. The state put a Ward-trained superintendent in charge of schools there. His vision was to create small schools, turn the school into a marketplace of school choice while overhauling the bureaucracy, closing low-performing districts, and opening charter schools. Charter schools seemed to be producing better results because they had higher test scores.
Problems in Oakland: Test scores rose, but they were still far below the state average. 54% of people in Oakland surveyed said that the school system had gotten worse or stayed the same. Also, charter schools had half as many special education students and they could make students leave. These students wound up at public schools.
What did the Broad Foundation learn after a decade? They were happy with charter schools "improving" student achievement, but disappointed that some of their investments didn't pay off. They said that they would continue to support efforts to extend the school day, merit pay, national standards and tests, and charter schools.
The Broad Foundation supports the arts and medical research without trying to redefined how art should be created/ how medical re search should take place. Why can't it do this with education?
Race to the Top: $4.3 billion to promote educational reform. Excluded any states that limited the number of charter schools or prohibited a link between teacher/principal evaluations and student test scores. Told states to adopt as many as possible Obama-administered ideas to support reform if they wanted to receive the money.
Broad & Gates foundations support a concentration on charter schools and teacher effectiveness. However, when there is such an emphasis on charter schools, public schools will become the "dumping ground" for students who were rejected or did not apply. It should be expected that public schools will include well-educated teachers/administrators and a great educational program.
Summary
In this chapter, Ravitch highlights some of the problems surrounding school reform efforts and how they can be improved. She believes that a well conceived curriculum, appropriate assessments, and well-educated teachers are essential for an effective learning environment. She argues that a national curriculum would stop schools from focusing on math and reading, and give students more than just the basic skills they need to pass assessment exams. Measurements and assessments make schools very data driven and make the value only what can be quantified. These assessments should reflect the curriculum, and go beyond testing basic skills in multiple choice exams.
Notes
There has always been an effort to improve schools- debate about what should be improved, how it should be improved, and what is meant be ‘improvement’
Education is key in developing human capital
Effects the economy as well as civic and cultural life
Policies in place today make schools less effective and degrade intellectual capacity
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
Organization that studies school performance
“Strong curriculum, experienced teachers, effective instruction, willing students, adequate resources, and a community that values education” are all essential for a successful education system
Policies and reforms should be controlled by teachers and educators, not legislature and congress
Schools cannot focus only on math and reading
They should not value only what tests measure
Not everything can be quantified
“Data-driven”
Should not use tests to determine the fate of students, teachers, principals, administrators, schools
Pressure to raise scores
Stop the closing of neighborhood schools
Anchors of the community
Charter schools siphon away the motivated students and their families
These schools should not compete -> Collaborate with public schools
Principals should be experienced educators
No one answer to education improvement
Important to make goals that are worth striving for
Beyond the measure of basic skills
Curriculum – provides direction without interfering with how to teach
A roadmap
A lack of curriculum leads to the teaching of basic skills
National curriculum
Nonfederal and voluntary
A reading list for each grade
Cultural heritage
Teach, read, reflect on, debate timeless issues
Teach basic math skills as well as critical thinking and problem solving
More resources for science classrooms
Separate religion from science in the classroom- evolution
Research papers in history, essays in literature, research projects in science, demonstrations in math, conversations in foreign language, performance in arts
Do not use results to identify schools that should be closed. Which schools need help?
In addition to well conceived curriculums, appropriate assessments, and well-education and effective teacher – community and family has an impact
Implant attitudes and values about learning
Need involved families
In schools- enforce standards of civility and respect that are necessary for an effective learning environment
Reactions
In the last chapter of the book, Ravitch goes back to her original beliefs that curriculum and instruction will have the most impact on improving schools. Although she was attracted by the ideas of choice and accountability, seeing them implemented in schools made her realize the many consequences that are not accounted for. Although she realizes that there is no one answer to school improvement, she argues that the policies that we have now make schools less effective and degrade intellectual capacity, and that we are not on the right path to improve schools.
The Death and Life of the Great American School System
by Diane RavitchRavitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. Basic Books.
Chapters 1 & 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Reading Notes
There is rarely time to read the same book twice. If we take good notes, we (or anyone else) should be able to review the main point of each chapter of this book and use these ideas to support our own thinking about educational reform, connect to other sources, and draw our own conclusions.
To that end, prepare a synopsis on one of the book's chapters. Each synopsis page should include: The title of the chapter, a concise paragraph summary of the chapter, bullet points that summarize the main points, and a paragraph that describes your reactions. For shared chapters, you should divide the work evenly and fairly. Synopsis links:
Title Chapter 1: What I Learned about School Reform
Summary
Diane Ravitch is an educational historian who has been on the forefront of federal educational reform efforts for the past three decades. In this chapter, she sets the stage for changing her mind about many of these efforts and explaining her criticisms of several of the current efforts to improve schools. The chapter is a walk through the main writings of her career. The purpose of this "tour" is to establish her credentials for what she is about to say later in the book as well as to provide historical context for many of today's reform efforts.Notes
Career Retrospective
“The new thinking – now ensconced in both parties – saw the public school system as obsolete, because it is controlled by the government and burdened by bureaucracy. Government-run schools, said a new generation of refomers, are ineffective because they are a monopoly; as such, they have no incentive to do better, and they serve the interests of adults who work in the system, not children.” p. 9
Reactions - 2011
Chapter one describes the thesis of the author, including her personal background and experiences as an educator. This chapter serves as an introduction for the reader, reflecting her views on the reform standards of schools in America. She establishes the foundation for the remainder of the book and reveals her honest perspective on the successes or failures of our school systems. Ravitch's experiences make her well-qualified to write about this controversial subject matter. Her admitting of her changed viewpoints also displays her truthful nature, providing credibility as an author. Her narrative is not so much factual as it is personal and passionate. Ravitch entices her audience to want to read the rest of her book with her inspiring writing style and the intriguing content provided in her initial chapter.Chapter 2: Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement
pg. 15 - 30Summary
This chapter focuses mostly on school reforms and how everyone realized that it was important for students to have a well rounded education. Government and schools understood that students needed to be proficient in subject like history, english, and the arts. Standardized tests don't often test students on history and the arts, which are just as important.Notes
Reactions - 2011
We agree that the improvements and modifications to the curriculum that Ravitch discusses are definitely needed. The students need to be more well rounded so the teachers and classrooms need to modify their plans so that more time is dedicated to each of the subjects. Ravitch's point about moving away from testing resonates with us because we feel as though we have been taught how to take a test, not taught the material that we would need to know. How effective are these tests if you can score above average on a Science section without ever taking a Biology course? The teachers are being told to teach to the test, not to the material in the course. Teachers cram material that will be tested on the state tests into their lessons even though they are not even related to the current course material. We feel as if the subjects that are tested on, like English and Math, are given more attention than the other subjects such as Science and History. Ignoring or not focusing as much on these other subjects is leading to ignorance in students. For example, if you know that a law has failed in the past, you will know not to enforce it again. Having knowledge of these subjects makes more well rounded students who will better off in the future. Based on the levels of students and the levels of those classes, students are being told different things. For example, in an Honors or AP, students feel as if they are encouraged to think more freely and their opinions are appreciated. However, in a College Prep or lower level, they are being taught that their opinions are wrong and are not being encouraged to think freely.- Reaction- How does teaching tests make the students proficient in the long-run? The goal is to educate students’ on a curriculum and not just on tests. What went wrong with the NCLB act was teachers stopped using curriculums so they could just focus on testing scores. States had control of what would be taught which ended up narrowing what types of classes kids could take. Subjects like history, art and science are important in education and being cut out of curriculums is counterproductive because it prevents students from becoming well-rounded.
Chapter 3
Summary
This chapter covers the turn-around District 2 of New York and how Anthony Alvarado began making extreme reforms (particularly to its Reading program) when he became superintendent of the district in 1987. Alvarado highly stressed (and mandated) using Balanced Literacy in District 2's schools as a method of teaching. It was a style of teaching in which the students would teach each other many things rather than the teacher giving a lecture for the entire class. Students would learn from experience and then exchange their experiences with other students and learning more through this exchange. By the mid/late 90s District 2 gained the status of having the 2nd highest test scores in New York as opposed to its earlier rank which was somewhere in the middle of New York's 32 school districts. Education scholars such as Lauren Resnick and Richard F. Elmore took notice of District 2's great improvement and asked Alvarado to join them in documenting the process of his reform. The three attributed District 2's success solely to pedagogy rather than economic status of the district itself (which they feared would happen in the eye of the public). Sure enough, critics and parents of District 2 alike began to claim Disrict 2's methods as unorthodox and "preventing children from to read". Although Resnick, Elmore, and Alvarado claimed that District 2 had been economically stagnant during its time of reform in their report, the District actually increased in economic status while these changes were happening. Along with this, the district's school's student population was mostly made up of White and Asian students. This shows how although Alvarado's pedagogy may have had an effect on the District, it appears that race and economic status also had a great deal to do with it.Notes
Reaction
My reaction to this is somewhat let down and disappointed. When first begin the chapter I was interested in all the numbers Ravitch was throwing out there regarding the District's improvements. I actually believed that Alvarado was making a really big difference and that other school districts were right in modeling their school system after District 2's. However, as the chapter went on, I began to realize that, although claimed by Ravitch as having many of both poor and wealthy neighborhoods, that the District's lesser amount of diversity than the New York average and economic increase in those years of reform is most likely what led it to be successful. I feel that Alvarado's reforms certainly helped with this increase in the school's success, but overall I feel as though it was just another school system benefiting from its wealthy location.SECOND REACTION: We were not happy with this chapter. The guy discussed in chapter three, Alvarado and his tactics, were very irritating. He went in a changed all the schools around in District 2 in New York and then proceeded to do the same thing in California. He tried to balance literacy and was attempting to close the achievement gap but what really happened was that he messed with the diversity of the schools. In my opinion, making the school less diverse will not help the school as a whole. Despite the fact that his ideas were well thought out, they weren't executed properly and effectively.This chapter was very difficult for me to get through and found it to be one of the more interesting chapters in this book so far.
Chapter 4: Lessons From San Diego
Jason A. & Sammie L.
Part I Summary:
San Diego school officials overhauled the district by hiring a non educator, Alan Bersin, as the superintendent in 1998. Surprisingly, San Diego was already a high achieving district, which is why it was a very unpredicted move to launch a massive reform campaign. This campaign, however, was not entirely without reason. The teacher's union had desperately wanted wage increases (the highest wage at the time was only $55,000) so it was determined that a strong new leader was needed. Bersin was the man for the job. As a former law student at Harvard, Oxford, and Yale he possessed strong business connections and was not affiliated with the teachers' union. To summarize, Bersin made the following changes to the school system:
Part II Summary:
In 2002, the American Institutes for Research evaluated the Blueprint. Even though AIR was happy with the Blueprint, they noticed the teachers were upset because it was started up too quickly. The academic results for the implementation of the Blueprint showed that there were mixed gains that are made less viable based on resistance from teachers and impending budget cuts. They concluded that without teacher support, the Blueprint would not be as effective.
- Elementary school findings varied from high school findings.
- Elementary teachers thought their students learned more, but high school teachers did not.
- Teacher unions were blamed for the teachers' discontent, instead of the issues within Blueprint policy.
- San Diego students did not gain as much as other students from other districts did from the Blueprint
- Only in middle schools did San Diego students show similar rates of progress
- Important Factor: According to Sheila Byrd, curriculum expert, San Diego focused more on the aspects of how teachers should be teaching instead of what students should be learning.
- This caused frustration for a lot of the teachers because they had very little input about the way Blueprint was enforced
- One principal even described the Blueprint as "a regime of thought control" (pg. 62)
- One principal said the minute-to-minute schedule was difficult for children to adjust to because they would be so engaged in their work it would be hard for them to stop.
- Teachers became parrots- they were telling the leaders of the Blueprint what they wanted to hear, not what the teachers wanted to say.
- Important Conclusion Regarding the Blueprint: The teachers union was surveyed about the reforms
- 78% said the Blueprint and other reform efforts were not an improvement to the quality of education in San Diego
- 63% reported poor teacher morale
- Descriptions of the Superintendent and his administration had words such as "arrogant, dictatorial and disrespectful."
- Stress-related illnesses rose for teachers
Majority of the teachers were angry and disaffected because of the Blueprint- the way Bersin went about changing the system and implementing Blueprint made it so ineffective to the San Diego school district. Had it been handled differently the results may have been more positive.Chapter 5 - The Business Model in New York City
pages 69-91This chapter exemplifies several of the "mistakes" Mayor Bloomberg made during his term. It shows the problems that stemmed from having a uniform, centralized system with a single math and reading program for every school. As Ravitch says, it is easy to believe that these are all good ideas that will result in success within the school system. However, rather than reaching goals, many of the strategies that were implemented created chaos and lack of achievement. Michael Bloomberg took all the power of the school system and changed the schools completely. He shut down many schools and created hundreds of new schools. The evaluation of schools was flawed along with the testing process, but proceeded with these new plans anyway. He did not really get to the heart of the problems with schools. Parents did not have much say at all if any which is a problem when it comes to their child's schooling. It shouldn't be as hard for students to attend school as Bloomberg made it.
School reform truly needs to be taken one step and a time and such drastic changes can not be made so rapidly within a matter of a few short years. Bloomberg's strategies encouraged the "Game of School" where teachers taught to the tests and students took minimal interest in the material. However, this experimental business model was good to learn from, as school officials now know what strategies to avoid and what to implement.
Diane Ravitch: The Death and Life of the Great American School System Chapter 6- NCLB: Measure and PunishBy: Chloe BlauAdded to by: Alex Carlson and Lindsay HeckmannChapter Summary:
The focus of this chapter was No Child Left Behind. This was an act of congress that was initiated by former President George W. Bush in 2001, and was signed into law on January 8th, 2002. No Child Left Behind, or more frequently referred to as NCLB, is all about standard-based education and education reform. Bush promised that NCLB would bring about a new era of high standards, testing, and accountability. The chapter introduces the legislation, goes over the details of it, and then gets into how the legislation is not working properly. One of the issues with NCLB is that one of its goals is by the year 2014, every student must be proficient in reading and math. Now are now four years and a long ways away from obtaining that goal. The major issue that Ravitch had with NCLB was that it was indeed a nice thought, but it didn't explain how these standards would be met, and it didn't seem very realistic. Another issue was that the document used terms, such as "adequate yearly progress" and "proficiency", that it did not define, so it was somewhat unclear to the reader what the goal was. The chapter continues on discussing NCLB and the effects of this act. Ravitch ends the chapter with a pretty powerful quote: "Testing is not a substitute for curriculum and instruction. Good education cannot be achieved by a strategy of testing children, shaming educators, and closing schools" (111).
Major Points of the Chapter:
My Reaction to the Chapter:
My reaction to the chapter was not what I thought it was going to be initially. Before reading this, I had heard and somewhat of an understanding of what No Child left Behind was, but I didn't know the nitty gritty details that Ravitch goes on to discuss. Overall, I agree with what Ravitch has to say. I think that the goals that were set in NCLB, such as having EVERY SINGLE student in the United States proficient in Reading and Mathematics by the year 2014 is ludicrous. I think that NCLB needed to take smaller steps in their actions, and work as they go instead of trying to solve every problem they encountered at once. I also agree what the statement Diane Ravitch makes about testing not substituting for curriculum and instruction. I think that schools are now "teaching to the test" so much more, it is dumbing down the school curriculum and ultimately, making kids suffer through their education.
Before reading the chapter, I did not know much about No Child Left Behind. I had heard of it, of course, but did not really understand its purpose or goals. I agree with Ravitch's opinion that NCLB is outlandish. The idea of having every single student in America being proficient seems impossible. Though NCLB's goals are admirable and seek to improve student's educations, it does not provide adequate time and funds for the student's to improve. Now, NCLB is becoming more of a competition in that schools are competing to be viewed as "good schools" and are competing to receive the best test grades. With the addition of Race to the Top, schools are now forced to compete with each other because the "winner" will receive additional funding. Because schools are teaching to the tests, Ravitch's last quote is especially true when she states that "testing is not a substitue for curriculum and instruction". Schools should be teaching students the material, but instead they are teaching the students how to take a test because if they succeed, they "win" in terms of NCLB, but are they really successful in terms of preparing the students for college or post-schools careers?
Summary:
-Discusses the history of "school choice"
-Began with integration in the 1950's and '60's with the the U.S. Supreme Court Case "Brown vs. the Board of Education"
-1990's: 3 versions of school choice (non-religious): voucher schools, privately managed schools, and charter schools (in addition to the choice of attending public schools). Believed these schools would transform American Education and produce higher achievement.
-School choice allows for a variety of different options for parents and students in educational standards
-Funding differs for each school, not necessarily funded by the state. Private schools tend to generate more funding from internal sources and donations.
-With the presence of these private schools, public schools are given a negative stigma. This view of public schools inspires more parents to enter their children in private schools making entry more selective in the mass number of potential students. However, according to statistics, these schools have not generated much higher achievement than public schools, their reputations are based off a stereotype of being more academically successful because they are "private."
-KIPP ("Knowledge is Power Program")-Type of charter school designed to prepare minority students specifically for college. 9 1/2 hour days, Saturday classes, and only 3 weeks of summer school. Requires a great responsibility from the parents as this type of school is much more demanding. Select students by a lottery.
-Lotteries select the most motivated students (usually not minority, ESL, or special-needs students) to foster a positive learning environment. This inclusion of the most motivated students produces the high standardized tests scores that private schools are known for. The higher funding also allows more educational benefits and learning opportunities.
Chapter 8: The Trouble with Accountability
Summary:
In the 1990's, there was a growing amount of interest in accountability amongst governors, corporate executives, etc. They wanted to know if their tax dollars were getting a good return in education. George H.W. Bush established the National Education Goals Panel, which set and monitored lofty goals for the year 2000. The panel quietly vanished when none of the goals were met. George W. Bush would later create No Child Left Behind in 2001. It declared that all students should be proficient in reading and math by 2014, with consequences for schools which were not meeting standards. Parents and teachers who protested were simply labeled "anti-testing fanatics" and were ignored.
Main Points:
Reactions: It is ridiculous, as Ravitch realizes, that Bush wanted everyone to be proficient by 2014. It encourages states to lower the standards so that they can meet proficiency. Though it seems that there are major gains in the state's proficiency, in reality, the tests are so much easier. This is what NCLB encourages in its need for total proficiency, which is an unreachable goal. It puts unnecessary pressure on both students and teachers and is not making any noticeable gains.
Ch 9 What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?
Main themes - Good teaching is most important to student learning
-Unions
-Business models
-Power to one person to fire teachers
Mrs. Ratliff – English teacher, nonconventional teaching, not in a union
-Pushed her students to do better and taught her students to learn not only literature but character and responsibility
-Ravitch says Ratliff wouldn’t be considered a “great” teacher by data driven facts and since she didn’t produce test scores
-Unions prevent removal of “ineffective” teachers, but that might remove the actual good teachers
-Run schools like a business?
-Michelle Rhee Chancellor of schools in NY supported getting rid of bad teachers by getting rid of tenure
-Rhee said performance doesn’t depend on poverty or family it only depends on teachers ability to teach
-Ravitch feels unions are a right of the teachers and important
-Tenure is an argument against unions since it keeps bad teachers, Ravitch argues against it
-Original ideas for reforms did not include tying teachers pay to performance of students but over time this is what it evolved into due to NCLB and Value added assessment
- Myths popped up that the achievement gaps could be closed in a few years with better teachers and policies which fueled people wanting to have complete power to fire bad teachers at will
-Teach for America allows teachers to teach without degrees, results showed teachers with degrees produced higher achievement
by Diane Ravitch
Chapter 10- The Billionaire Boys' Club
Chapter Summary
Chapter 10 is titled "The Billionaire Boys' Club" because Ravitch talks about billionaires in the education system. Because of the failed attempts of the Ford Foundation, other foundations began to step up to help the education system in America. However, most the foundations were philanthropic and backed by families with billion dollar fortunes. The top three foundations were the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (founder of Microsoft), the Walton Family Foundation (founder of Walmart) and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation (founder and seller of a retirement business called SunAmerica). Because many of the less fortunate districts needed the funding and support of the big philanthropic foundations, they turned to the large corporations for help and couldn't turn down the generous offers being given to them. Although the money was good, the outcome wasn't what they expected. Many of the districts were scared to say anything when they realized their district was not improving with the input of these businesses. Many of the leaders of the schools avoided making their opinions and ideas aware to the foundations, in fear that they could jeopardize future contributions from the foundations.
Each of these foundations were major philanthropic foundations trying to fix the education systems in America. Although each foundation made large efforts to change the structure and methods surrounding the failing schools, not all of them were successful. Even though many of the effected districts were seeing improvements in attendance and student/teacher relationships, the academics in the school remained the same or decreased. For example: The Gates Foundation tried making big schools smaller in order to improve rigor, relevance and relationships however making the schools smaller only led to less resources for other programs such as AP classes and sports. This caused many of the advanced kids to leave the small schools and go to different districts, in turn causing the academic standing of the school to decrease or remain the same. Another example was the Broad foundation thinking that schools could be run like a business and the Walton foundation believing that there should be market competition among schools. Despite the efforts and funding that the big foundations provided, the Billionaires didn't end up really improving the academics of the schools. So although each foundation did wonders with the amount of money they donated, Ravitch still believes that unless they recognize the importance of "teacher effectiveness," or the negative effects of running education systems like a business, public education will be destroyed.
Robin Keller pgs. 195-208
- Controversy of education in 1960's Ford Foundation
- 1967 project: Community Control- Schools in an impoverished urban neighborhood improve by being governed by parents and members of the local community.
- Power eventually given back to the Mayor
- Getting rid of white teachers/supervisors without due process
- Demonstrations, protests and problems started in Ocean Hill Brownsville
- Union went on strike three times and closed schools down for 2 months
- 1969 state decentralized schools and created elected school boards lasted until 2002
Ford foundation learned not to engineer social change- and set an example for others as to why it's badRachel Jones
pgs 208 - 222
Chapter 11 : Lessons Learned
Pgs. 223-242Ruqayya El-Asmar
Summary
In this chapter, Ravitch highlights some of the problems surrounding school reform efforts and how they can be improved. She believes that a well conceived curriculum, appropriate assessments, and well-educated teachers are essential for an effective learning environment. She argues that a national curriculum would stop schools from focusing on math and reading, and give students more than just the basic skills they need to pass assessment exams. Measurements and assessments make schools very data driven and make the value only what can be quantified. These assessments should reflect the curriculum, and go beyond testing basic skills in multiple choice exams.
Notes
Reactions
In the last chapter of the book, Ravitch goes back to her original beliefs that curriculum and instruction will have the most impact on improving schools. Although she was attracted by the ideas of choice and accountability, seeing them implemented in schools made her realize the many consequences that are not accounted for. Although she realizes that there is no one answer to school improvement, she argues that the policies that we have now make schools less effective and degrade intellectual capacity, and that we are not on the right path to improve schools.